• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Why exactly will they be harder to solve? This is what I'm struggling to understand.

We have a first past the post system. France have a presidential system (one in which last elections people completely rejected the status quo and also swept his very new party into power in the parliament). Germany have a PR system, with a culture of coalitions and compromise. Belgium have an absolute joke of a system where their country basically seems to have no functioning government whatsoever. Etc etc.

We had a chance to change the system in 2011. The Lib Dems first of all went for a compromise on a system that was pretty crappy anyway and then somehow didn't get the Tories to stay neutral on the matter. And the people voted against AV, with a 42% turnout. Where was the EU in all of this? Did they tell us to stay FPTP? That AV was brick? That we couldn't have a referendum? That we needed to go to PR? Nope, the EU didn't get involved at all because it is absolutely none of their business.

What has von der Layden said?

Also I know you're being flippant but you must know that this comment is just untrue? At the very least by dint of the fact that they come from a pool of dozens of countries with about 500 million people, as opposed to 1 (4) countries with 65 million? I've just done the most cursory of searches for the last 5 European Commission presidents (excluding the interim one) and they come from 4 different countries and studied at 5 different universities across 5 different countries. Though unsusprisingly most have done law or economics. Contrast to this: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-degree-that-rules-britain

Nobody is forcing our people to continue to vote or continue to elevate people who did PPE at Oxford or to lick the boots of those who went to Eton/Harrow/Winchester and yet we continue to.

I'm 400% sure that our politicians will continue to blame the EU afterwards. If we leave on a no deal and our economy responds accordingly, I reckon that will be a good few decades worth

Out of interest, what changes do you think you want to make to British society and the way we're run that you feel we can't make currently because of the EU?

In all of this talk, i always go back to the fact that we have democracy that is far more closely effect-able by the populace than in the European Union. If you don't like what your PM is doing you can vote him/her out at an election. If you like your PM but don't like what your local MP does for your local area you can work with the local associations etc to get them deselected.

On the European Union stage we as citizens in each of the countries are far more removed from the decision processes; our MEPs cannot bring in new legislation, they can only give a green or red light to the executive in the EU, who themselves are unelected by the electorate (and also the electorate is not asked by our leaders who they should select) and themselves draw up policies and legislation that they see fit. And there is zero way for us as the electorate to lobby to get certain 'new' policies on their table. There is no 'feedback loop' process for the electorate to get policies onto their table, like there is in national democracies.

Think about how that works in principle: apart from the most recent European Parliament elections, when Brexit was on the horizon and many had a ticket saying "we will fight to keep the UK in the EU" or "we will work to get Brexit over the line", on what basis do we elect our MEPs? Do we select them based on manifesto pledges ("i will do that or that/fight for this or that when i go to Brussels", "i will lobby for x policy" etc) or do we select them simply because "well this is the party i usually vote for domestically".
How can a particular issue locally in our constituency be represented in Brussels by our MEP? I don't think this is realistic and hence i think the 'democratic process' from a constituency level is bu default a sham at the EU level.

In my opinion the EU and its institutions are working to centralise the democratic and decision-making processes across Europe so that decisions are taking by fewer and fewer people (who are less accountable) so that we end up with a United States of Europe. It is the openly stated aim of many of the big movers and shakers in the EU (including Ursula Van Der Layen). By the very nature of how this would have to operate, given the disparate nature of European countries in terms of history, economic, political culture and social culture, it would end up a quasi-dictatorship by default. I believe one people across those countries see this, and their limited ability to effect their political processes via democracy all hell will break loose, including the kind of civil unrest that the EU designers claim they seek to never have happen again.
I haven't even started on national governments being able to go down their own economic route as they see fit: it is well known that the EU hope that Corbyn doesn't get elected as they are opposed to his 'socialist' economic models. Now a lot of our electorate are opposed to it anyway, but if Corbyn does get elected, it should simply be for him as in any other PM, to chart the countries course as he/she deems fit and with whatever mandate the electorate provides. The EU should not be setting the agenda from afar, as they have done with other countries (e.g. rejecting Italy's budget plans, though i know that's a separate story relating to how Italy has got itself into a financial mess in the last decade or so, but i digress. the point being that the Italian electorate should be the ones who get to say they like it or not, after all the Italian government got voted because they were to carry out such a policy and budget).

We have some big democratic issues in this country (we are a monarchy for a start!) but i feel we can mobilise and effect it much more if the buck stops here for most things than if the buck stops at Brussels for most things: how does one lobby for, say, a change in policy re spending plans? If we don't like our government's spending plans here, we can lobby to make it an election issue and vote in or out politicians who we agree or disagree with with regards to such policies. It's not perfect, but a process is there.
On a European Union level, how would we get The European Commission to commit less spending on, say, defence and more on other policies that might be more important to our constituency? How do we lobby and get the debate going? Do we visit our MEP? Do we do it through our local association and then take a train to Brussels? How does our issue square against an issue that a resident in Southern Italy has, where we might be competing for funding from the same budget but for different purposes? Who wins in that 'battle' and why? In this country that battle might be something in Cornwall vs an issue in Grimsby or Kent. That in itself is hard to manage, so GHod knows on a European level how that is.

Ultimately, i believe the Europe is NOT one country, whilst the movers and shakers in the EU beliebe in a United States of Europe despite all logic. If the EU had stayed simply as a trading bloc as it was back 40/50 years ago, i don't think the Brexit vioe would have happened. Sadly, it has morphed into this quasi-Superstate and like other Brexiters, i think it's best we leave before it implodes: one-size-fits all, Economic and Political policies wont work in the long-run and when it inevitably falls i want this country to be as immune as is possible. We have enough issues here as it is!

I know you probably disagree, but i hope that explains my position.
 
Thing is, I don't think I've met any remainers who think that. I'm sure they exist but I personally have never met them. All of them, including me, can see faults within the EU. And to some extent, we've always been the bad sibling in this relationship, never really wanting to be in the family anyway, never seeing themselves as part of the family (I've always found it funny how often people say they're going to Europe, as if we're not already physically in Europe).

A lot of remainers don't mind that we didn't take on the Euro, don't necessarily want closer integration, would balk at the suggestion of a USE or a European army whereas I've met more than a few people from the mainland who are very happy with the Euro, feel close to their 'European brothers' and see a USE and army as the best balwark for Europe to counter the USA/China/Russia/ potentially India in the future. It will certainly be interesting to see how we approach these things in the future if we do crash out in a no deal, Boris refuses to pay any money and we sour our relationship with a bloc of countries we should still consider our closest allies.

I've certainly met lots of people who voted leave who think the EU are at the root of so many of our problems though and an evil empire gradually taking over every aspect of our lives. My recent favourite was Gutterboy blaming the EU (iirc) for how many homegrown players we had to register for the CL and opining that now we were tipping the scales of UEFA 28 vs 27 non EU vs EU, we'd be teaming up with other FAs to get the law changed for a policy that affects pretty much nobody but us. It was an incredible reach but one that made me chuckle.

To be fair to the EU its architects are indeed trying to create an almost Empire-like Bloc to be able to go up against China, USA etc. They don't want to be reliant on NATO for defence and want to have a currency that can rival the dollar on the world stage. I get that, but as i said before i think such one-size-fits-all policies wont work because of the disparate nature of the countries that make up Europe, not unless they effect a dictatorship, which itself will end in ruins.
As i said before, if it stayed as simply a trading bloc, Brexit wouldn't have happened.
I think it's best the UK charts its own course independently on the world stage, but should keep good relations with its neighbours of course.

A lot of those remainers who don't mind that we didn't take the Euro and don't want 'ever closer union' have to recognise that the EU wants all of that, including centralised army, further expansion of the Eurozone, the ability to set taxes centrally for all countries etc. Obviously i disagree with all of that, hence my Brexit position. I would disagree with those who want to remain but respect them if they have a view that says they want or even don't mind all of those things. Fair enough.

However, I totally lose respect for thsoe who want to remain but claim that the EU does NOT want those things - even though it is staring people right in the face.
 
Judge rejects Parliament shutdown legal challenge


Scotland's judge rejects bid to have PM's plan to shut down parliament ahead of Brexit deadline declared illegal

In his ruling, Lord Doherty said the decision to prorogue parliament was, in this case, "political territory and decision making which cannot be measured against legal standards".
 
@glorygloryeze

We already looked at how impossible it would be for europe to become 'a united states of europe'. No nation wants it. Each nation has such distinct languages, cultures, pride, nationalism etc etc. I know you love to fear this. But its irrational.

Can I ask one question, how can you have a trading block without some laws to ensure each nation and each company are competing on a level playing field?

Can I ask you one more question, what EU laws do you particularly dislike? Maybe a law that effects you directly.

Let's talk realities, not fearmongering and distopian future visions of the EU evil empire talking us over. Can you see how that looks - conspiricy theories, quacks etc.
 
Last edited:
Interesting peice by Bryan Gould, ex-Labour MP who i think now lives in New Zealand:

====

We are where we are because Remainers have collaborated with the EU to prevent an acceptable deal

soubry-umunna-etc.jpg


What an extraordinarily depressing experience it is to be compelled to watch, at 12,000 miles distance, the contortions and machinations of the British political class as they set about their determined attempt to overturn the decision taken by the British people that they wish to leave the European Union.

The pages of publications like The Guardian are replete with articles by “constitutional experts”, exploring the various arcane ways in which so-called “democrats” could manipulate constitutional and parliamentary rules and practice so as to frustrate the will of the people by preventing a “no deal” Brexit — and all this supposedly in the name of democracy!

Let us be quite clear. The rearguard campaign to prevent a “no-deal” Brexit is merely a smokescreen for the real objective, which is to frustrate any Brexit at all and, in effect, overturn the referendum outcome. Despite protestations that they are committed to giving effect to the referendum, the Remainers’ actions tell a different story.

They calculate that, if the EU can be persuaded not to budge on negotiations for a deal, there will be sufficient opposition to a “no-deal” Brexit to mean that Parliament will find a way to stop it.

The contempt they show for democracy is exceeded only by their arrogance – their conviction that they alone know best – and by their readiness to demonstrate that their true allegiance is not to British democracy and self-government but to the “ideal” of European union – and, in the interests of that ideal, that they are prepared to collaborate with the EU to ensure that no acceptable deal for Brexit is available.

Let us again be clear. A “no-deal” Brexit arises as a possibility only because the EU, in pursuance of their unspoken arrangement with Remainers, refuses to talk to, let alone negotiate with, a British government committed to withdrawal – a dramatic illustration of the extent to which, when we cannot even secure a position as a valid interlocutor on the issue of our own decision to withdraw, EU membership continues to mean a status of vassalage for the UK.

The EU are encouraged in this unreasonable intransigence by the continued efforts from Remainers to convince them that the battle to overturn the referendum result is not over and could yet be won if a deal is placed beyond reach. Defeated in the referendum and professing to abide by its outcome, they nevertheless demonstrate continually – and particularly to the EU – their determination at whatever cost to make it as difficult as possible.

What are the British people to make of this demonstration of contempt for them by their supposed leaders? For many, the sense that they are not being listened to – which, many believe, lay behind the referendum result – will simply have been confirmed.

Their confidence in democratic institutions and in their leaders will be further undermined. Their sense of being mere pawns, manipulated under a cloak of democracy in the interests of the political class, will have been validated.

What else are they to think, when so much effort is devoted by politicians to frustrating their wishes, and when what should be a reasonably straightforward proposition, that our EU membership should end, seems to be beyond our institutions to deliver and is not something that the EU is even prepared to discuss with those primarily involved?

Whatever we may think of a Boris Johnson Government, there must be some sympathy with its position that terminating our EU membership, in its essence, must surely be something that is within the remit and power of the UK government – deal or no deal.

Whether or not there is a “deal” is as much the responsibility of the EU as it is of the UK. In the absence of any EU willingness to negotiate a deal, it cannot be the case that the UK is locked in – prisoners who cannot escape. A “no-deal” Brexit, when and if it happens, will have been engineered, not by Leavers, but by the absence of any alternative, brought about as a consequence of the Remainers’ collaboration with the EU to prevent an acceptable deal being agreed.

URL: https://brexitcentral.com/we-are-wh...ed-with-the-eu-to-prevent-an-acceptable-deal/
 
Let us be quite clear. The rearguard campaign to prevent a “no-deal” Brexit is merely a smokescreen for the real objective, which is to frustrate any Brexit at all and, in effect, overturn the referendum outcome. Despite protestations that they are committed to giving effect to the referendum, the Remainers’ actions tell a different story.

Been obvious all along.

Baffles me that they are managing to do it under the pretence of "the right thing". Its not.

Its cutting the UK off at the knees to facilitate either no Brexit at all, or BINO.

The absolute opposite of the referendum result.
 
Been obvious all along.

Baffles me that they are managing to do it under the pretence of "the right thing". Its not.

Its cutting the UK off at the knees to facilitate either no Brexit at all, or BINO.

The absolute opposite of the referendum result.

The Brexit party will be loving it........Boris not so much!
 
Got to say that, while I don't entirely disagree with her sentiments, I find the hypocrisy of Lisa Nandy absolutely staggering...
 
They could, I certainly woudnt put it past them, and a vote of no confidence gets Corbyn his dream job...

But then what? We just flip the coin and end up with a minority government still.


A GE makes most sense, in so much as it will be referendum 2.0. The parties will have to actually state a position, and the people will decide.

I would imagine Labour to be pro remain, expecting that to be the popular choice - but who knows? Maybe Corbyn will pull rank and try for his nonsense customs union option, so he can still (sort of) Brexit and then look to make his other manifesto pledges happen.

Lib Dems will of course be straight up remain, no BINO.

Cons would most likely take a leave position, pretty much as they are now. Ideally with a deal but with no deal if necessary.


If this were the case, I wonder if the Lib Dems would split the Labour vote?

The interesting thing with a General Election is that there are 410 leave constituencies and only 240 remain ones.

Basically remainers are highly concentrated in just London, Scotland, Bristol and Brighton; so the electoral system, compared to a referendum, is a real problem for them
 
Got to say that, while I don't entirely disagree with her sentiments, I find the hypocrisy of Lisa Nandy absolutely staggering...

Who? Why?

The interesting thing with a General Election is that there are 410 leave constituencies and only 240 remain ones.

Basically remainers are highly concentrated in just London, Scotland, Bristol and Brighton; so the electoral system, compared to a referendum, is a real problem for them

Is that recent data? Im not sure Ive seen much in the way of that sort of thing for a while.

Interesting though. Would voting be on party lines or policy?
 
The interesting thing with a General Election is that there are 410 leave constituencies and only 240 remain ones.

Basically remainers are highly concentrated in just London, Scotland, Bristol and Brighton; so the electoral system, compared to a referendum, is a real problem for them

I don't see it being quite that simple, though. A big issue is going to be persuading the 'tribal' Labour vote to go Tory. Not to mention what happens with the Brexit party.
 
I don't see it being quite that simple, though. A big issue is going to be persuading the 'tribal' Labour vote to go Tory. Not to mention what happens with the Brexit party.

Im less interested in The Brexit Party and more interested in the Labour/Lib Dem dynamic.

I think The Brexit Party are a side show, a protest vote, and one that wont amount to much if the Conservatives make a clear leave stance in their manifesto.

The Lib Dems are on a bit of a resurgence though. Did very well against Labour in the euro elections, new leadership and good vibes. They will of course run a remain campaign, and Im thinking they could well take a chunk out of the Labour vote.



Labour MP who, if I'm understanding it right is sympathetic to leave but voted against the WA. She now wants it bought back.

Thanks, first Ive heard of her - easily done with so much happening at once!
 
Been obvious all along.

Baffles me that they are managing to do it under the pretence of "the right thing". Its not.

Its cutting the UK off at the knees to facilitate either no Brexit at all, or BINO.

The absolute opposite of the referendum result.

Why are MPs who voted FOR Mays withdrawl agreement, now voting to stop a no deal brexit? Your and GGeze logic don't stack up. A no deal exit is a very serious thing. Something MPs should be dealing with. Despite having no viable plan of how to exit the eu, all leave people seem to want to do right now is moan. And blame. Yet they seem unable to put forward a viable vision (just irrational fear). No solution. No realism. Just - it was your fault.
 
Last edited:
Interesting peice by Bryan Gould, ex-Labour MP who i think now lives in New Zealand:

====

We are where we are because Remainers have collaborated with the EU to prevent an acceptable deal

soubry-umunna-etc.jpg


What an extraordinarily depressing experience it is to be compelled to watch, at 12,000 miles distance, the contortions and machinations of the British political class as they set about their determined attempt to overturn the decision taken by the British people that they wish to leave the European Union.

The pages of publications like The Guardian are replete with articles by “constitutional experts”, exploring the various arcane ways in which so-called “democrats” could manipulate constitutional and parliamentary rules and practice so as to frustrate the will of the people by preventing a “no deal” Brexit — and all this supposedly in the name of democracy!

Let us be quite clear. The rearguard campaign to prevent a “no-deal” Brexit is merely a smokescreen for the real objective, which is to frustrate any Brexit at all and, in effect, overturn the referendum outcome. Despite protestations that they are committed to giving effect to the referendum, the Remainers’ actions tell a different story.

They calculate that, if the EU can be persuaded not to budge on negotiations for a deal, there will be sufficient opposition to a “no-deal” Brexit to mean that Parliament will find a way to stop it.

The contempt they show for democracy is exceeded only by their arrogance – their conviction that they alone know best – and by their readiness to demonstrate that their true allegiance is not to British democracy and self-government but to the “ideal” of European union – and, in the interests of that ideal, that they are prepared to collaborate with the EU to ensure that no acceptable deal for Brexit is available.

Let us again be clear. A “no-deal” Brexit arises as a possibility only because the EU, in pursuance of their unspoken arrangement with Remainers, refuses to talk to, let alone negotiate with, a British government committed to withdrawal – a dramatic illustration of the extent to which, when we cannot even secure a position as a valid interlocutor on the issue of our own decision to withdraw, EU membership continues to mean a status of vassalage for the UK.

The EU are encouraged in this unreasonable intransigence by the continued efforts from Remainers to convince them that the battle to overturn the referendum result is not over and could yet be won if a deal is placed beyond reach. Defeated in the referendum and professing to abide by its outcome, they nevertheless demonstrate continually – and particularly to the EU – their determination at whatever cost to make it as difficult as possible.

What are the British people to make of this demonstration of contempt for them by their supposed leaders? For many, the sense that they are not being listened to – which, many believe, lay behind the referendum result – will simply have been confirmed.

Their confidence in democratic institutions and in their leaders will be further undermined. Their sense of being mere pawns, manipulated under a cloak of democracy in the interests of the political class, will have been validated.

What else are they to think, when so much effort is devoted by politicians to frustrating their wishes, and when what should be a reasonably straightforward proposition, that our EU membership should end, seems to be beyond our institutions to deliver and is not something that the EU is even prepared to discuss with those primarily involved?

Whatever we may think of a Boris Johnson Government, there must be some sympathy with its position that terminating our EU membership, in its essence, must surely be something that is within the remit and power of the UK government – deal or no deal.

Whether or not there is a “deal” is as much the responsibility of the EU as it is of the UK. In the absence of any EU willingness to negotiate a deal, it cannot be the case that the UK is locked in – prisoners who cannot escape. A “no-deal” Brexit, when and if it happens, will have been engineered, not by Leavers, but by the absence of any alternative, bought about as a consequence of the Remainers’ collaboration with the EU to prevent an acceptable deal being agreed.

URL: https://brexitcentral.com/we-are-wh...ed-with-the-eu-to-prevent-an-acceptable-deal/


This really sums up the delusions of brexit.

"Whether or not there is a “deal” is as much the responsibility of the EU as it is of the UK." Reality bypass. We are the ones making a change, but its as much the EU responsibility? We have more to lose from no deal, but the EU should be looking out for us?

"...will have been engineered, not by Leavers, but by the absence of any alternative" - state the damn alternative! What is it? Rather than try and blame others for Brexit's faliur, outline the alternative that the UK should follow with the EU. Shame on him for being so weak and blaming others while offering up nothing himself.

Living in la la land.

:)
 
Last edited:
Back